on "beauty (re)discovers the male body"

Freud, Sigmund (1962). Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, trans. James Strachey. New York: Basic Books. (1996). Drei Abhandlungen zur Sexualtheorie. Fischer: Frankfurt am Main. [Reprint of the 1905 edition.]

The Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality explore the various definitions of who is generally deemed the sexual object verses who commits sexual acts. The discussion of this "sexual aim" may be utilized for Bordo's purposes in that it will analyze how psychology plays its role in identity, dominance, and gratification. While many of Freud's specific theories (castration anxiety, penis envy, etc.) are contested, the more general terms regarding sexual identity and its principal roots are referenced continuously in pop culture. Bordo may use this as a somewhat historical source to affirm her psychological claims regarding dominance and identity, particularly when she assesses the masculinity of the leaners, the rocks, etc.

shake it out

whenever i try to do anything productive, i unfortunately have the strongest urge to suddenly get my life together (make grocery lists, check Facebook, respond to emails, look at my calendar...) and avoid doing the task at hand. this blog post will be my procrastination buffer, so that i don't completely get out of the zone if i need a 30 second break. that said, i hope to build up the writer/student's endurance much like a runner would. one day i will hopefully be able to continue working without the need for any distractions due to lack of motivation.

i wrote that twenty minutes ago and have since checked twitter twice. i don't even go on twitter often. i'm going to have to start putting a rubber band on my wrist or something and snap it when my productivity wanes.

this is my solemn promise to be a more motivated student. in honor of friere, my education will be a product of my own interaction with what i'm doing. if i'm not going to put my full focus into it, my grades and the knowledge i will take away from each assignment will be representative of that.

dear kenyon college:

Due to the nature of this speech, there wasn’t really much to question. This isn’t expanding on a deeply rooted philosophical theory, its just showing students who are ready to “go out into the world” the various ways to see a certain situation. This article, as far as I can see, points out many important things about being conscious of perspective.

The following are quotations that particularly stood out at me, either because they illustrate that point, or because they just seemed particularly accurate in my eyes.

“The point here is that I think this is one part of what teaching me how to think is really supposed to mean. To be just a little less arrogant. To have just a little critical awareness about myself and my certainties. Because a huge percentage of the stuff that I tend to be automatically certain of is, it turns out, totally wrong and deluded. I have learned this the hard way, as I predict you graduates will, too.”

“…learning how to think really means learning how to exercise some control over how and what you think. It means being conscious and aware enough to choose what you pay attention to and to choose how you construct meaning from experience. Because if you cannot exercise this kind of choice in adult life, you will be totally hosed.”

Possibly my favorite quote from this selection was:

“The thing is that, of course, there are totally different ways to think about these kinds of situations. In this traffic, all these vehicles stopped and idling in my way, it's not impossible that some of these people in SUV's have been in horrible auto accidents in the past, and now find driving so terrifying that their therapist has all but ordered them to get a huge, heavy SUV so they can feel safe enough to drive. Or that the Hummer that just cut me off is maybe being driven by a father whose little child is hurt or sick in the seat next to him, and he's trying to get this kid to the hospital, and he's in a bigger, more legitimate hurry than I am: it is actually I who am in HIS way.

Or I can choose to force myself to consider the likelihood that everyone else in the supermarket's checkout line is just as bored and frustrated as I am, and that some of these people probably have harder, more tedious and painful lives than I do.”

My personal nature is to look at different ways of thinking. I don’t see much use for dwelling on how poorly prepared the dining hall food is on a given night, when, meanwhile, the children in Darfur would most likely give a limb to have an open-access meal plan. I really appreciated reading a cohesive monologue about thinking in a different way. I personally think that one of the biggest parts of educating yourself is to learn to see something from someone else’s shoes (even if that’s strictly limited to interpersonal intelligence). The only real evidence I have to back myself up is any experience I’ve had with a particularly self centered, or particularly biased person. If they cannot concede even slightly and acknowledge the strength of the opposing argument, they seem less intelligent.

corpo consciente

Most of “The Banking Concept of Education” was insightful, and elaborated much more philosophically my own thoughts on how we view “learning”. One area of the essay, however, was not as clear to me. I therefore choose this to blog about in hopes that handling it further will solidify my own understanding of what Friere is saying. (My attempt to learn in the spirit of Friere!)

On page 321, there’s a paragraph that specifically states the region I just referred to.

“Implicit in the banking concept is the assumption of a dichotomy between human beings and the world: a person is merely in the world, not with the world or with others; the individual is spectator, not re-creator. In this view, the person is not a conscious being (corpo consciente); he or she is rather the possessor of a consciousness: an empty “mind” passively open to the reception of deposits of reality from the world outside. For example, my desk, my books, my coffee cup, all the objects before me—as bits of the world which surrounds me—would be “inside” me, exactly as I am inside my study right now. This view makes no distinction between beings accessible to consciousness and entering consciousness. The distinction, however, is essential: the objects which surround me are simply accessible to my consciousness, not located within it. I am aware of them, but they are not inside me.”

I think the part that I understand the least is how Friere views the relationship with a human and its environment (although it could be the lack of sleep deterring me from making this connection). In my psychology class, I was absolutely fascinated when we discussed the spectrum of consciousness, and I feel as though much of that textbook information perhaps had roots from the teachings of philosophers such as Friere. What I am taking away from that paragraph/concept is this: in the banking concept of education, our ability to interact with our environments is belittled. We are what is given to us as “knowledge” and are not considered knowledgeable on our own because it wasn’t instilled in us (literally). Perhaps I’m not being articulate enough, so I will try to expand this in a slightly more concise fashion.

The scope of the student is limited to what the teacher can “teach”. We are spectators, not thinkers. He is saying that this view does not allow us to exist as what we were put upon this earth to be. We accept what we are told, we passively absorb the knowledge, instead of questioning, challenging, wondering. I might be as bold as to assume that he is saying the banking concept forbids us from utilizing the complex mental faculties we are given at birth.

Perhaps I am being brash in that assumption.